Cuts warning to councils: don't ignore homelessness

The Local Government Ombusdsman says she is concerned that budget pressures could lead to more instances where homeless people are unlawfully neglected by local authorities

The ombudsman investigates more than 300 complaints each year over homeless people denied help by their local authority. Photograph: Janine Wiedel Photolibrary/Alamy
Janine Wiedel Photolibrary / Ala/Alamy

The Local Government Ombudsman's warning to councils not to try to wriggle out of their legal duties to homeless people is well-timed. As council cuts kick in, and homelessness applications rise, the risks of vulnerable people being let down by councils are increasing. As the ombudsman, Jane Martin, says:

"I am concerned that more people could now suffer injustice because of the combined impact of a tough economic climate and the serious budget pressures on councils."

Currently, the ombudsman receives 300 complaints a year from individuals about the inappropriate use of what critics call "gatekeeping" by councils. This involves councils either failing to deal properly (and lawfully) with a homelessness application, delaying it unneccesarily, or refusing to provide suitable accomodation.

People are legally entitled to help from councils, points out the report, if they are homeless or are likely to be made face homelessness within a 28 day period. Councils are obliged to provide, at the very least, advice and practical assistance. Where the applicants are in "priority need" - if they have dependent children, are pregnant, or ill, disabled, a victim of domestic violence, or under 18 years old - the council is expected to provide a form of temporary accomodation.

The report lists four main areas where councils currently "go wrong":

• Failing to do enough to prevent people becoming homeless; • Failing to look into whether a person needs help• Failing to recognise an application for help; • Failing to provide interim accommodation where someone is in priority need.

It also outlines various blocking or delaying tactics inappropriately employed by councils, which seem to involve smothering applicants in official forms, asking them to prove that they are homeless (councils are required to make their own enquiries) or deferring applications because the applicant "appears" to be a non-priority. The risk, it points out, is that applicants fall through the cracks, particularly if they do not qualify for "priority need" help. As Martin puts it, as a result of council neglect or ineptitude, these people:

"...can find themselves sleeping rough or on people's sofas, struggling to find the foothold that would allow them to change their circumstances. When councils fail to give them a helping hand at that key moment, it can affect that individual for years."

Leslie Morphy, chief executive of Crisis, has called the ombudsman's report "shocking". That's over-egging it slightly. But Morphy has a point when she says:

"With homelessness already rising, this is yet more evidence that councils must do better but also that the Government needs to tighten the legislative safety net for all who are homeless or at risk. The housing minister, Grant Shapps, must address these issues urgently and seize the opportunity to amend the Localism Bill currently passing through Parliament so that all in need get clear homelessness advice and written notification of this advice and their rights."

As the cuts take hold, the frequency with which overstretched, under-resourced town halls inadvertently lose their grip on the day to day management homelessness may increase, I suspect. The temptation for councils to "game" the homelessness process also may grow stronger, particularly where high cost interventions like temporary accomodation are required.

As I discovered when I wrote last week about Westminster council's risk assessment of the impact of housing benefit caps, the financial implications for a council of a sudden rush of homeless acceptances are potentially dire. (I use this reference as an illustration of the financial risks, by the way, not as an inference that Westminster is likely to "game" homelessness applications):

"There will be a glut of homelessness applications from January 2012, says the report, requiring the provision of temporary accomodation for up to 300 households in the borough next year. This, the report, says is affordable within existing budgets, but as long as just four out of the expected 40 monthly applications are accepted. The report warns that acceptances could be as high as 40%, in which case Westminster would need to find 1,500 temporary residences, at a cost of up to £18m."

When I spoke to Martin about her report she was very respectful of the pressures that councils face as the cuts chaos descends. But she is clear that she won't hesitate to intervene if local authorities fail to comply with the law:

"We are absolutely sympathetic to councils who have to deal with homelessness arangements...but the bottom line is that this is an essential service."